Obama Prepares to Screw his Base

[opebo]

His base will simply freeload like they always do. Miss 32 year old power lawyer working 80 hours a week will pay for it.

Haha, well discouraging the behavior of being a lawyer will certainly be a positive side-effect!

However, don't feel too bad, krazen - all those 'freeloaders' will also be working 80 hours per week, cleaning up the garbage or frying chicken or something like that.  So, your 'everybody is miserable' goal will be more than fulfilled.

That's an interesting theory. The actual trend is to slash hours to 25 to avoid paying for obamacare.

What would those freeloaders be unhappy about? Miss 32 year old power lawyer and others like her are providing for them.

Not a bit - those poors all have 3-4 25 hour per week jobs - otherwise they would die.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Wait, so you're telling me my premium will be higher for the ONE YEAR where I am not eligible to be covered by my parents? OBAMA HOW DARE YOU!!!!! 

No, it doesn't go like that. It's not a cliff, it's a slope.  Regardless of the law, as you age, you'll pay more and more until you hit Medicare. The law just means that the increase will come sooner rather than later.  Since younger people are less likely to have employer-sponsored insurance, and tend to have less income to buy health insurance, that doesn't strike me as a good deal.  How much individual subsidies will help I don't know.

This is not true at all. The new law would benefit those in their 40's and 50's (or who are otherwise in poor health) but "screw" those who are younger and healthier. Of course, if you want to lower overall insurance premiums, this is the way to do it. Medicare doesn't have much to do with it.

I see no reason why this law would decrease the average person's insurance cost over their lifetime.

[Sbane]

Wait, so you're telling me my premium will be higher for the ONE YEAR where I am not eligible to be covered by my parents? OBAMA HOW DARE YOU!!!!! 

No, it doesn't go like that. It's not a cliff, it's a slope.  Regardless of the law, as you age, you'll pay more and more until you hit Medicare. The law just means that the increase will come sooner rather than later.  Since younger people are less likely to have employer-sponsored insurance, and tend to have less income to buy health insurance, that doesn't strike me as a good deal.  How much individual subsidies will help I don't know.

This is not true at all. The new law would benefit those in their 40's and 50's (or who are otherwise in poor health) but "screw" those who are younger and healthier. Of course, if you want to lower overall insurance premiums, this is the way to do it. Medicare doesn't have much to do with it.

I see no reason why this law would decrease the average person's insurance cost over their lifetime.

If the law had some teeth (as in high enough penalties to force everyone to get insurance), theoretically it would lower costs. Right now many healthy people forgo insurance because they think they don't need it. If you create a healthier pool, premiums will go down.

[memphis]

Wait, so you're telling me my premium will be higher for the ONE YEAR where I am not eligible to be covered by my parents? OBAMA HOW DARE YOU!!!!! 

No, it doesn't go like that. It's not a cliff, it's a slope.  Regardless of the law, as you age, you'll pay more and more until you hit Medicare. The law j
ust means that the increase will come sooner rather than later.  Since younger people are less likely to have employer-sponsored insurance, and tend to have less income to buy health insurance, that doesn't strike me as a good deal.  How much individual subsidies will help I don't know.

This is not true at all. The new law would benefit those in their 40's and 50's (or who are otherwise in poor health) but "screw" those who are younger and healthier. Of course, if you want to lower overall insurance premiums, this is the way to do it. Medicare doesn't have much to do with it.

I see no reason why this law would decrease the average person's insurance cost over their lifetime.

Your life is not an average. You have a sample size of one. This is a basic guarantee of access to treatment for you as much as anybody else. Something to keep in mind.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Wait, so you're telling me my premium will be higher for the ONE YEAR where I am not eligible to be covered by my parents? OBAMA HOW DARE YOU!!!!! 

No, it doesn't go like that. It's not a cliff, it's a slope.  Regardless of the law, as you age, you'll pay more and more until you hit Medicare. The law j
ust means that the increase will come sooner rather than later.  Since younger people are less likely to have employer-sponsored insurance, and tend to have less income to buy health insurance, that doesn't strike me as a good deal.  How much individual subsidies will help I don't know.

This is not true at all. The new law would benefit those in their 40's and 50's (or who are otherwise in poor health) but "screw" those who are younger and healthier. Of course, if you want to lower overall insurance premiums, this is the way to do it. Medicare doesn't have much to do with it.

I see no reason why this law would decrease the average person's insurance cost over their lifetime.

Your life is not an average. You have a sample size of one. This is a basic guarantee of access to treatment for you as much as anybody else. Something to keep in mind.

average modifies cost, not person in that sentence.

[memphis]

Wait, so you're telling me my premium will be higher for the ONE YEAR where I am not eligible to be covered by my parents? OBAMA HOW DARE YOU!!!!! 

No, it doesn't go like that. It's not a cliff, it's a slope.  Regardless of the law, as you age, you'll pay more and more until you hit Medicare. The law j
ust means that the increase will come sooner rather than later.  Since younger people are less likely to have employer-sponsored insurance, and tend to have less income to buy health insurance, that doesn't strike me as a good deal.  How much individual subsidies will help I don't know.

This is not true at all. The new law would benefit those in their 40's and 50's (or who are otherwise in poor health) but "screw" those who are younger and healthier. Of course, if you want to lower overall insurance premiums, this is the way to do it. Medicare doesn't have much to do with it.

I see no reason why this law would decrease the average person's insurance cost over their lifetime.

Your life is not an average. You have a sample size of one. This is a basic guarantee of access to treatment for you as much as anybody else. Something to keep in mind.

average modifies cost, not person in that sentence.

Right. But you're still acting as if that average cost applies to everybody. It doesn't. You're right, however, that the healthcare bill was primarily focused on access to insurance, not reducing overall healthcare costs. The latter would have to involve wholesale demolition of the private insurance racket. And that's not going to happen.

[jaichind]

I am in the "1%" and ironically I will "win" under Obamacare.  Mainly because of logic talked about in
http://retireearlyhomepage.com/healthcarereform2.html

This basic math is I have to pay this 0.9% tax on income above 250K and 3.8% in dividends.  But I plan to retire early so I will not have to pay this Obama tax that long, another 4-5 years.  Also we plan to retire well before our children reach adulthood.  So the threshold of 400% of poverty level for subsidies on "Silver rated" insurance in the exchange (NY state will set up an exchange) would be higher since our household would be "large."  This means that our insurance cost will be well below what it would have been if we retired without Obamacare.  This means we will have to withdraw less money from our large asset based saved up over the years due to our high income.  Along the way we will not pull money out of 401K since that will mess up our plans to extract subsides from Obamacare.  Now this becomes a virtuous cycle since as we pull less money out of our assets we can invest them in assets that generates less income but have higher asset growth.  And lower income means the Obamacare subsidies gets larger.  This also means we need less assets before we retire and that means we pay less of that 0.9% and 3.8% Obamacare tax.  All this means more assets we can leave to our children and thanks to the GOP is tax free below $5 million. 

I despise this law as a step toward socialism but will get my revenge when I get more $ out of it then I put in despite my high income.  I will laugh (at Obama) as I now retire 2-3 years earlier than I had expected.  

[Torie]

Wait, so you're telling me my premium will be higher for the ONE YEAR where I am not eligible to be covered by my parents? OBAMA HOW DARE YOU!!!!! 

No, it doesn't go like that. It's not a cliff, it's a slope.  Regardless of the law, as you age, you'll pay more and more until you hit Medicare. The law just means that the increase will come sooner rather than later.  Since younger people are less likely to have employer-sponsored insurance, and tend to have less income to buy health insurance, that doesn't strike me as a good deal.  How much individual subsidies will help I don't know.

This is not true at all. The new law would benefit those in their 40's and 50's (or who are otherwise in poor health) but "screw" those who are younger and healthier. Of course, if you want to lower overall insurance premiums, this is the way to do it. Medicare doesn't have much to do with it.

I see no reason why this law would decrease the average person's insurance cost over their lifetime.

If the law had some teeth (as in high enough penalties to force everyone to get insurance), theoretically it would lower costs. Right now many healthy people forgo insurance because they think they don't need it. If you create a healthier pool, premiums will go down.

Only if you do cross subsidies, and you know I loathe that concept based solely on age, or to a lessor on any other basis, other than based on means. Sure it will save money if the number of free loaders who can afford insurance premiums paid out of their own pocket, start paying them, rather than leaving unpaid medical bills strewn around.

[jaichind]

The main reason I will take advantage of this among many loopholes in Obamacare is the really the income based discontinuous nature of these subsidies.  I think one can should play with

http://healthreform.kff.org/Subsidycalculator.aspx#incomeAgeTables

Put in Family of 4, no employer coverage, regional factor of Higher.  The try it with annual income of 93K (397% of poverty line) vs 94K (401% of poverty line) for age 45 (when I plan to retire.)  94K has no subsidies and 93K has a subsidy of 8.2K.  Put in age 55 and the subsidy grows to 14.8K for income 93K and zoro subsidy for 94K.  

Of course in NY state this underestimates the subsidy.  Even a "silver" insurance policies  that will be on the NY health exchange will have a premium greater than this website suggests which makes the subsidy even greater.  The subsidies for me or others like me does not end here.  The out of pocket expenses will be capped as well in the form of Obamacare subsidies.  

This program starts with a very wrong vision.  The vision that health care insurance should not be greater than 9.5% of a family income if the family's income is not high.  But it ignores the fact that this ratio is way out of line with market prices.  And if market prices indicates demand greater than 9.5% of family income then said family must want it more than 9.5% of its income.  Anyhow, Obamacare picked 400% of the poverty line for government goodies to be handed out to match this vision and just abandons all above that threshold to market forces.

All this means is people will manipulate income to be below 93K which is easy to do when the income comes from assets and not work.  Ergo this makes it quite easy for lazy "1%" to game it so we can retire even earlier than we had hoped.  And as I mentioned before, I am helped by the fact that poverty line is a function of number of people in the household.  So when I retire early, my children will still be part of the household which pushes up the income line to get these free goodies.  People who has lower wage income than I do and do not retire until then are in the 60s will not have this benefit since their children will be adults and not part of the household.  Another example of law of unintended consequences of a big government plan that in turn will be manipulated by the wealthy for their own benefit whatever their intentions. 

I am sure there are other silly broken logic with this system but as I start working with it I am sure I can find them out and exploit it.  

[Sbane]

Wait, so you're telling me my premium will be higher for the ONE YEAR where I am not eligible to be covered by my parents? OBAMA HOW DARE YOU!!!!! 

No, it doesn't go like that. It's not a cliff, it's a slope.  Regardless of the law, as you age, you'll pay more and more until you hit Medicare. The law just means that the increase will come sooner rather than later.  Since younger people are less likely to have employer-sponsored insurance, and tend to have less income to buy health insurance, that doesn't strike me as a good deal.  How much individual subsidies will help I don't know.

This is not true at all. The new law would benefit those in their 40's and 50's (or who are otherwise in poor health) but "screw" those who are younger and healthier. Of course, if you want to lower overall insurance premiums, this is the way to do it. Medicare doesn't have much to do with it.

I see no reason why this law would decrease the average person's insurance cost over their lifetime.

If the law had some teeth (as in high enough penalties to force everyone to get insurance), theoretically it would lower costs. Right now many healthy people forgo insurance because they think they don't need it. If you create a healthier pool, premiums will go down.

Only if you do cross subsidies, and you know I loathe that concept based solely on age, or to a lessor on any other basis, other than based on means. Sure it will save money if the number of free loaders who can afford insurance premiums paid out of their own pocket, start paying them, rather than leaving unpaid medical bills strewn around.

Yes, cross subsidies are needed. They happen in every single other nation in the entire planet of ours. It is not that controversial.

Speaking of means, why not have everyone pay a certain percent out of their income for their premium and create a large group that the Hospitals are beholden to? Perfect way to means test and lower overall costs at the same time.

[Torie]

Cross subsides non means tested are controversial to me. Maybe I am just weird. The percentage of income thing sounds like another tax. We can chat about tax policy another time. I am out of here. I am going on a double date tonight, and need to get ready. Cheers.

[Sbane]

Cross subsides non means tested are controversial to me. Maybe I am just weird. The percentage of income thing sounds like another tax. We can chat about tax policy another time. I am out of here. I am going on a double date tonight, and need to get ready. Cheers.

For which you get health insurance. Not that it is the only way to fund a public option (which can be private, I frankly don't give a sh**t, but it needs to be big, big and maybe a little bigger than that), you could also have people pay out of pocket with subsidies based on income. The big group is necessary though since purchasing power is everything. Every single one of us should be paying the Medicare rate at hospitals.

[King]

I got dropped by my insurer today.  


And offered a new plan with the same deductible, lower premium, and more dental coverage.


Falalala.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I got dropped by my insurer today.  


And offered a new plan with the same deductible, lower premium, and more dental coverage.


Falalala.

So Obamacare does have some bite.